If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

Comment

The 'crazy' homeless person living in the street are not that hard to ID and would be swept up if we had this kind of law. Sure they commit their share of violent crime. However this type of law would do almost nothing to slow or stop the mass shooter.

Well, then considering that the vast majority of active shooter events could have been perpetrated with a 12ga shotgun firing buckshot as opposed to the weapons used, it appears there are only two solutions:

1) Eliminate ALL firearms.

2) Accept that sometimes crazed maniacs will acquire firearms and kill people with them for no apparent reason.

To paraphrase the Joker "When a gangbanger dies, or a murder is committed, no one panics because it's all part of the plan.......when a maniac guns down a bunch of people with no understandable motivation everyone loses their minds"

Comment

The top ten nations with the most firearms per capital include nations like Finland, Yemen, Sweden and Iraq. The "more guns = less violence" claim is a myth. The number of guns in a system doesn't directly correlate to crime statistic - in both directions. Both those demanding more guns or less as a solution do so without reason or evidence but rely on their own subjective faith filtered through that most horrid of beasts, "common sense".

Also, it should be noted that this graph, and the results, have a lot of room for error. As they point out:

For example, Yemen, ranked near the top with an ownership rate of 54.8, has a low estimate of 28.6 and a high estimate of 81.1. While the United States is ranked for the highest gun ownership rate unambiguously, Yemen (based on the margin of error) may rank anywhere between 2nd and 18th.

Which ties us back to the original issue: what causes violence is more than just guns. Guns are, themselves, not a direct cause of crime, but their presence does enable more widespread and destructive crime when it occurs. If the US were to just start air dropping in crates of automatic weapons into Mexico or Libya at random, dispersing them to the population on the breeze, one would expect to see a spike in violence and an exacerbation of their criminal problems.

What is much more important are things like society and culture, the strength of the government, national stability, the reliability of rule of law, and other such factors. Ease of access to firearms can enable criminals to act, and make their acts more costly, but they don't create criminals in the first place. In the hypothetical above, what makes those guns that much of a problem is that both Mexico and Libya already have major criminal / anti-government forces at work.

Weapons don't make a situation better, can make a situation worse, but what has to be remembered above all is that they do not create the situation in the first place.

Number of guns in the US : 110 % of the population;number of murders : 15000

Number of guns in Russia : 10 % of the population;number of murders in Russia : 13000 (2012)

This proves that more guns does not result in more murders ,as the overwhelming majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens .

In 2000 there were 40000 murders in Russia,but the reason was not that the number of guns was 300 % of those in 2012.

If in the US the number of fire arms will go down, this will be to the profit of the criminals,as criminals will always have guns .

Comment

Number of guns in the US : 110 % of the population;number of murders : 15000

Number of guns in Russia : 10 % of the population;number of murders in Russia : 13000 (2012)

This proves that more guns does not result in more murders ,as the overwhelming majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens .

In 2000 there were 40000 murders in Russia,but the reason was not that the number of guns was 300 % of those in 2012.

If in the US the number of fire arms will go down, this will be to the profit of the criminals,as criminals will always have guns .

You've just repeated part of my argument back - that number of guns are an essentially minor part of the equation - and followed it up with an unfounded claim that criminals will always have guns. You've also failed to back up your previous claim that more guns mean less crimes, so I assume you've conceded that point. But the bigger issue remains, that being economical, social and cultural - guns don't create criminals.

Comment

Well, then considering that the vast majority of active shooter events could have been perpetrated with a 12ga shotgun firing buckshot as opposed to the weapons used, it appears there are only two solutions:

1) Eliminate ALL firearms.

2) Accept that sometimes crazed maniacs will acquire firearms and kill people with them for no apparent reason.

To paraphrase the Joker "When a gangbanger dies, or a murder is committed, no one panics because it's all part of the plan.......when a maniac guns down a bunch of people with no understandable motivation everyone loses their minds"

1) Eliminate ALL fire arms means : take away the fire arms from the law-biding citizens, but not from the criminals .

2) is wrong :if crazed maniacs can not acquire fire arms , this does not mean that they will not kill people: they still will kill people using other weapons .

If you want to prevent crazy maniacs killing people, the solution is very, very simple : lock them up in places as Fuller (Massachusetts ) , otherwise no one can prevent them from killing people, if they want .

If you want prevent a condemned paedophile from raping children, it's useless to forbid him from staying in the vicinity of schools ; the only solution is : hang him, or lock him up til death .

If you want to bring down the number of deaths by car accidents, less cars, a more difficult driving test, ...all such things are useless ; the only solution is very harsh punishment : death penalty for all drivers who kill some one while they are intoxicated/ drugged .

Comment

OTOH, Automatic weapons are already highly regulated. The process to purchase one is more extensive than the process to become a doctor in some respects.

Bump Stocks make a weapon that is not automatic function in a way that automatic weapons function, therefore they are a method of skirting the current laws highly regulating automatic weapons.

I imagine their status as being relatively unknown - seemed like nobody here has heard of them before this - was their saving grace. That, and from what some have said, evidently they were stated as a means to benefit handicapped or otherwise disabled shooters, so even those that did hear of them in a regulatory capacity might have overlooked them.

What might be done is for the government to step in and start regulating firearm accessories as well to prevent a repeat of this - unless they already do, in which case expect the laws to be tightened over this as it looks like we move towards banning bump stocks.

Comment

Well, then considering that the vast majority of active shooter events could have been perpetrated with a 12ga shotgun firing buckshot as opposed to the weapons used, it appears there are only two solutions:

1) Eliminate ALL firearms.

2) Accept that sometimes crazed maniacs will acquire firearms and kill people with them for no apparent reason.

To paraphrase the Joker "When a gangbanger dies, or a murder is committed, no one panics because it's all part of the plan.......when a maniac guns down a bunch of people with no understandable motivation everyone loses their minds"

That's what makes it challenging: telling someone who's daughter was just gunned down "Hey, suck it up. **** happens, and we can't do anything about it." It doesn't matter that it is essentially true, that we as a society don't possess the means to prevent people like this with no history, no clear motive, no strong trail to follow in striking out.

It's what I said before: Americans have essentially come to terms with these shootings as being the tax to pay the second amendment (and avoid paying to really fix the problem, which is separate from but slightly exacerbated by the guns, but that's becoming a broken record at this point).

If we really want to fix the problem, we'll work to remove the causes behind our gun violence problem (and not just get morally outraged only whenever these big attacks occur).

Comment

I imagine their status as being relatively unknown - seemed like nobody here has heard of them before this - was their saving grace. That, and from what some have said, evidently they were stated as a means to benefit handicapped or otherwise disabled shooters, so even those that did hear of them in a regulatory capacity might have overlooked them.

What might be done is for the government to step in and start regulating firearm accessories as well to prevent a repeat of this - unless they already do, in which case expect the laws to be tightened over this as it looks like we move towards banning bump stocks.

I've known about them before, thought they were sloppy and slipshod. I see no compelling reason to have one. If you practice shooting you should be able to hit your target fairly well.

Full auto is just a waste of $$$.

Credo quia absurdum.

Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

Comment

Was the shooter on any kind of meds for mental issues?
If he was, let's hope his doctor prescribed the correct pills.
I speak from experience because 20 years ago I went to my doctor feeling tired and run down, and she said "You're just depressed".
"No I'm not" I replied, but she insisted I was and prescribed Prozac anti-depressants.
So I started taking them on the offchance she was right, but they made me feel unpleasantly woozy and in a dreamlike state as if I was on another planet, so I flushed the rest down the loo and gradually got my brain back over the next few days.

Comment

You've just repeated part of my argument back - that number of guns are an essentially minor part of the equation - and followed it up with an unfounded claim that criminals will always have guns. You've also failed to back up your previous claim that more guns mean less crimes, so I assume you've conceded that point. But the bigger issue remains, that being economical, social and cultural - guns don't create criminals.

In 2000 400000 people were murdered in Russia, while only 16000 in the US.
There were 260 million guns in the US in 2000, and much less in Russia . Thus :more guns = less murders and ,less guns = more murders .

Since 2000 the number of guns in the US has increased by 100 million, but there are not more murders . Thus ...

Criminals will always have guns, even in a dictatorship, because they will buy their guns on the black market .

A country without guns (slogan of the liberals ) is a country where only the state and the criminals will have guns . Such a state is not a democracy .

And, as you are saying, "guns do not create criminals, there is NO reason to attack the ownership of fire arms .